I feel that Reviewer #2 raises a valid point about this manuscript being a better fit for a “Measurement Report” as opposed to a “Research Article”. For a research article, there will need to be specific research questions that are addressed by the measurements. I suggest the authors articulate their research questions at the end of the introduction (Lines 99-102). It would be great if the authors can better motivate the study, beyond just the lack of CIMS measurements in urban areas as the only reason. Are there specific research questions about atmospheric processing, emission sources, air quality impacts that these measurements can help address?

The same comment applies to the conclusions. Some guiding questions to consider: As the reviewer suggested, is there a central story that links all the different sets of observations? Or what is the most important observation among these different observations that has the greatest implication? What is unique about these measurements done in a densely populated urban area? I think that if the authors can strengthen the discussion here (and in conjunction with laying down some research questions in the introduction), this manuscript can be a good “Research Article”.

I also recommend examining the grammar/language more closely, particularly with the revised portions of the manuscript. Here are some that I picked up, but by no means exhaustive:
Line 57 “fully accounted for”
Line 71 “understanding”
Line 87 only MOVI should be included in the acronym, since that is the inlet
Line 112: I think “global” means worldwide, whereas the measure you report here is local.
Line 113: that is a strange unit for solar radiation. Usually it is in W/m2. MJ/m2 might be integrated for a time period (e.g. a year?)
Line 128-130: run on sentence (multiple “which was”)
Lines 258-259: “after humidity correction was applied”